alanschu

Yeah you should be able to, from the Barracks menu.

Ouch. I've been lucky. I have only had one crash and it didn't affect my saved game.

It took me a bit to wrap my head around the outright absurdity of Old World Blues (especially compared to Honest Hearts, which I did first). But it's pretty absurdly entertaining hahaha. I don't typically pick up DLC, but I loved every one of FONV's. The only other game I think I have picked up DLC for is Shogun 2 (which was fantastic DLC too).

Touche! I was thinking about that too. Man... imagine if Google had some Muslim types working for it! Company culture would be eradicated!

Haha, I don't have most games on that list. Though EA does offer employees a rebate up to a certain value for digital purchases, so I could acquire most of them if I was interested. I snagged me a copy of FIFA for a friend and took a flyer on some super Command and Conquer combo pack with a gajillion C&C games in it

The fighting in Batman is not shallow. That you can win on an easier difficulty by pressing two buttons in an early game combat does not make it shallow. If you want the true spectacle of Batman's combat, you better darn well learn to play the game proper. As Labadal indicated, what he did didn't look particularly interesting at all. Unless the "spectacle" of Batman punching the air qualifies as a spectacle. I'd argue that his point was that the combat was trivial, however. So you game for more than just the challenge then, right? Because I daresay that Ironman Impossible is probably the most challenging thing in gaming in quite some time.

Classic can be pretty hit and miss I find. I have a really good Classic game going on at work, but have had some disasters going on at home. Ironman though.

I had only tangentially heard about this (Thanks Deraldin) before hand but I didn't really realize what was happening until I saw an article about it here. I found the comments interesting and quite polarized and heated haha. On the one hand, I see people justifying that it's not piracy since permission was granted (if perhaps abused/exploited), or justifying it saying that it's not their fault a programmer screwed up. Some compared it to others taking money from a cash register simply because the drawer is open. Others disagreed. Though the real world cost for EA is not nearly as much as though shipped boxed copies had been stolen (just bandwidth costs), I find it very interesting because it very much echoes the piracy debate, with a twist. One can easily take the position that they didn't pirate anything, since things were legally acquired through a promotion offer that was poorly set up on the server side. Though the justifications for doing so seem to mirror the same ones that pirates use, especially with a big target like EA: It's a way to stick it to the man (EA) It's not like there was a victim I wouldn't have bothered if I had to pay for it. It'll get more exposure for these games and result in a boost in sales for sequels and whatnot. It was convenient and followed the rules (this one is obviously not a perspective used for piracy). I didn't bother with this (as I didn't really have visibility on it anyways). I'm curious what I would have done. I think I wouldn't have taken advantage, though it's easy to say that after the fact, while missing the boat. Word is that EA isn't going to revoke any privileges and will let people keep the games (altruism/indifference aside, it probably doesn't make economic sense either). Although I do admit I'd be very curious of the backlash that would occur. The closest thing to a "victim" is the survey takers that are now no longer eligible. And I think I stink eye the people that did the survey and then decided to spread the info as something like that wasn't really in good faith and lacks integrity somewhat, although ultimately it's not a huge issue IMO.

This made me chuckle: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/15/charity-president-unhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/

Yeah after user error made me waste my recent classic game, I went back to Normal Ironman and I still get burned if I am too ****y. It was cool winning the terror map with 2 colonels and 4 squaddies though

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "high demand." Undoubtedly there's probalby more people that haven't contributed to the kickstarter that will still pick this up, and because I love Obsidian's writing I hope this game makes them mountains and mountains of cash, the numbers don't really indicate (for or against) whether or not this is a "high demand" at all IMO. It's still "only" 65k backers, and currently the average donation is a shade over $50. The kickstarter stuff has actually been pretty eye opening for me in terms of how much money moves around with games. That said, digital distribution and stuff like kickstarter makes it a lot easier to get out more specialized projects because the barriers to entry are less of an issue. Something I have been a huge supporter of the shift to digital for some time now!

It seems to be a consistent issue with those ships. I notice it on the Abductor quite badly, the supply ship so-so. My friend said the Battleship was mega annoying.

Note: If you're looking for a game that is difficult, go pick up XCOM and start the Impossible/Ironman game mode. As a modern game, surely no old schooler would have any problems at all beating it, right?

I'm not up on the "history" of Libertarianism, so maybe I'm not a "hardliner." For me, being a Libertarian usually means that I am socially progressive, and financially conservative. I have little issue with all the social issues that conservative parties want to bring up (e.g. abortion) and feel that if women want that right, they should be free to have it. I should be able to speak my mind without fear of state persecution and so forth. Financially, I appreciate balanced budgets. Where I qualify myself as being "mostly" a Libertarian, is that I actually am okay with universal public funding in a couple of areas: health and education. Health care is orders of magnitude cheaper with early prevention, and I think that the benefits of universal healthcare outstrip the negatives. Primary and Secondary education I think are also important, in many ways because such things are an investment in the future, and there are also other correlations such as education vs. crime rates and other things like that. I also feel that the cycle is self-fulfilling if parents are unable to afford education for their children. Post-secondary education I do not believe should be universal, however. At this point people are becoming adults, and while I don't have an issue with subsidization (the total cost IS expensive), free post-secondary leads to oversaturation of classes filled with people that "aren't really sure if they want to be there." Granted this is still a case during primary and secondary schooling, I think the situation is different because there are other socialization types of factors that I think are more useful from primary/secondary schooling where their attendance is more beneficial, compared to post-secondary education. Furthermore, and this is speaking purely from personal experience, is that I feel I benefited greatly from University once I had to pay for it myself. My first year of University came on scholarships and presented no real cost to myself. I flunked out. After growing up a bit, I wanted to return, and suddenly I was ponying up 4 to 5 thousand in tution, on top of housing expenses as I moved out. I sure as heck did NOT want to waste that investment. I was on the Dean's List (which appropriately got me scholarship money haha). So despite all that, I still happily give money to charities. Often in the form of sponsorship of a friend that is taking part in some sort of event. I typically run in the Underwear Affair run in Edmonton, which requires $300 in donations to cancer research in order to compete. A friend of mine ran in it this year (I wasn't able to), but I still put in $100 for a donation to it. For someone still finding financial equilibrium as I transition into a career, it's not as though it was a trivial amount of money. I've also helped out friends (and received help from them) that have found themselves in financial hardship. Especially my parents as my Dad needed to go through a career change at the age of 61 as his small computer store proved to be too small and no longer economically viable. A realization that he made probably 2 or 3 years too late.

If you're looking for a sense of accomplishment for beating challenges, why is that person playing on Normal in a game that very clearly has variable difficulty? I played through the Arkham games as it was a combination of a fun comic book narrative with some fun exploration and a really fun combat system that greatly rewards doing kickass and varied moves through the game. if you find the game too easy/mindless and you aren't playing on the hardest difficulty, I think the argument is severely undermined. How dare they make games where the default difficulty is too easy for me. Anyone that finds Batman's combat boring has distilled it down to something utilitarian in a way of "What's a way for me to get through the combat without putting in much thought?" It's neither optimal (I guarantee that I'll have less health issues than that chap), and by his own admission is not very much fun. Unless the point about modern games that he hates are the dip****s that mash two buttons (which in this case, is himself). Nevermind the fact that he's still utilizing an early game battle where, I'm sorry "old school gamer," is still going to be introducing many people to the combat system. Making it prohibitively hard and requiring moves that the player may still be getting familiar with within the first 30 minutes of the game is a great way to create barriers of entry. Fortunately, there's a higher difficulty level that's more punitive for making mistakes and playing suboptimally. He also mentioned a game like Contra. At this point it's probably important to point out that games back then were prohibitively difficult simply because the games themselves were not actually long, and that's how they made it more than a 1 hour long game. Compare the difficulty of Contra to the original Legend of Zelda (a game of actual length) and it's light years different. And Contra was a game that basically forced the player to fail in order to use that metaknowledge to succeed later on. It's basically a giant game of memorization. But it was hard to beat all right, and doing so without the need of a Konami code would certainly let someone feel special for doing so. I think many people overlook that many games of the past are games that can easily be beaten in a single sitting (this is by necessity). Even games that did have passwords to restore your progress were not that long. A friend and I beat Megaman 2 in a single sitting not too long ago. It was pretty baffling just how much of the game I remember through all the trial and error I needed back in the day. My friend was even able to survive Quickman's lasers without Flashman's freeze ability on his very first attempt... over a decade after last playing the game! (Something I had never done ever!)

I'd say it's definitely a bug. I could see it being one of the ones that they determine "isn't worth delaying the game over, and will be addressed in a patch" since there is a workaround for it (rotate cameras is usually pretty reliable). Would depend on when it manifested. It definitely sucks for ironman games

Well, I identify myself mostly as a Libertarian and don't think that this statement is true in the slightest.

Calax's pictures has nothing to do with gullibility. It's the way partisan groups see the country going if the other faction wins. That's the way many see it. Republicans see Obamacare type stuff as being on the road to financial ruin and the collapse of the economy. Democrats see Romney's "platform" as being on that will also lead to financial ruin and the collapse of the economy. Whether or not this will actually happen doesn't prevent large groups on both sides to believe that it will.

Be nice, it was a least the second link on my google search! It's not like irrational fears and insecurity are a new thing today though

To quote myself, I actually was thinking it's probably more akin to the old schoolers losing the feeling: "I got to the end, and because of that I feel special."

This. Batman's combat is insanely fun and well done. If you are disappointed because you can get through it only spamming two buttons, I daresay you've let yourself down as a gamer as for me the challenge isn't winning the fight, but getting 30+ combo bonus with 9x variation bonus. Heck, I explicitly play the beat 'em up challenge mode because the combat is so much fun. Yes, I can probably win the combat just using attack and counterattack, but that's less fun. Why on Earth would I sabotage my own gameplay? I'm seriously starting to think that because some of the older games pretty much required the use of some sort of "I win" gimmick, that many of the oldschoolers frankly cannot help themselves from exploiting it. If you only used two buttons in Batman's combat, you actively denied yourself some very fun moments in the game. That seems counterproductive, but I guess for some people the end goal is simply "can I get to the end?"

Once Mutons are running around, Carapace armor is pretty essential. Same with getting laser weapons (Light Plasma is also great for this). I find beam weapons and armor to be of utmost importance, but yeah for the first two months, ideally you want to have a lot of satellites up. Easier said than done I find. Especially in Classic.

Man the strategic game is punishing on the Classic. I might revert to just "Classic" instead of Ironman hahahaha

Just won Ironman Normal. Off to Ironman Classic.

I don't care where you buy it, as long as you do I'll be on Steam if you have any questions